Protein enhanced gelatin-like dessert

ABSTRACT

Various compositions for producing translucent to opaque protein enhanced dessert gels are disclosed. In general, the dessert gels comprise a gelling system plus flavorings, colorings, and nutritional additives. Exemplary embodiments of the gelling system comprise water, sweetener, carrageenan, and various proteins such as soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate, whey, and sodium caseinate.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to food products, and moreparticularly to, a gelatin-like dessert containing protein.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Gelatin desserts have come a long way since their inception. The patentto produce gelatin was first granted to Peter Cooper, of Tom Thumbengine and Cooper Union fame, in 1845. Over 150 years later, gelatinsnacks produced under the Jell-O brand name sell more than 400 millionboxes annually. Touted as “America's favorite food”, Jell-O brandgelatin desserts has gained extraordinary popularity and is regularlyeaten in 72% of all American households. This results in sales of over$212 million.

Hospital food ideally should be highly nutritious and functional innature, but currently most hospital food does not measure up to thisideal. For example, hospitalized patients on fluid-only diets areallowed to eat gelatin desserts. The water inside the gelatin dessertsserves to rehydrate the body. However, besides helping to rehydrate thebody and the presence of sugar, gelatin desserts provide littlenutritional value to aid in the recovery of the patient. Each day, overten thousand servings of gelatin desserts are taken to the bedsides ofpeople with a variety of ailments, from cancer patients to childrenrecovering from tonsillectomies. These people would greatly benefit froma gelatin-like dessert which also included essential vitamins, minerals,and phyto-chemicals to aid their recovering bodies. Since diet has beenlinked to heart disease and some types of cancer, it would make sensethat providing the sick patients with nutritious, healthy food would bea great option.

Accordingly, there is a need for a food product that is similar to thosegelatin desserts produced under the Jell-O brand, but provides morenutritional value and in particular is a good source of protein.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention addresses the above-identified need, as well asothers, with a gelatin-like dessert that is translucent to opaque inappearance and that features a protein component. In an exemplaryembodiment of the present invention, there is provided a dessertcomprising a gelling system plus optional flavorings, colorings, andnutritional additives. In particular, the gelling system of theexemplary embodiments comprises water, sweetener, a gelling agent, and aprotein component.

It is an object of the present invention to provide an improved dessertgel and mix for making same.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a new anduseful dessert gel and mix for same.

It is another object of the present invention to provide a dessert gelthat is vegetarian friendly.

It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a dessertgel having a substantial protein component.

It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a dessertgel having a carrageenan based gelling system with a relatively slowrate of water loss.

The above and other objects, features, and advantages of the presentinvention will become apparent from the following description and theattached drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary taste test survey utilized to helpreformulate the dessert gels of the present invention;

FIGS. 2-7 illustrate the evolution of the storage modulus G′ and theloss modulus G″ during the cooling phase for various gelling systems;

FIGS. 8-13 illustrate the evolution of the storage modulus G′ and theloss modulus G″ during the holding phase for various gelling systems;

FIGS. 14-19 illustrate the gellation rate of various gelling systemsduring the first 15 minutes of the holding phase;

FIGS. 20-24 illustrate the melting profiles of various gelling systems;

FIG. 25 illustrates a testing appartus for biaxial extensionalviscometry testing of gel sample; and

FIGS. 26-29 illustrate the 50% stress versus 50% strain results forvarious gelling systems.

DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS

While the invention is susceptible to various modifications andalternative forms, exemplary embodiments thereof have been shown by wayof example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. Itshould be understood, however, that there is no intent to limit theinvention to the particular forms disclosed, but on the contrary, theintention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternativesfalling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by theappended claims.

The dessert gel of the present invention generally includes atranslucent to opaque gelling system, sweeteners, flavorings, colorings,and nutritional additives. In the exemplary embodiments of the presentinvention, the gelling system includes a liquid component, a gellingagent component, and a protein component. The liquid component of thegelling system is preferably water but could also be fruit juice oranother water based liquid. In general, the liquid component of thegelling system serves as a hydrating and carrier function for thedessert gel.

The gelling agent component of the dessert gel preferably includescarrageenan, and more particularly consists essentially of Genugel typeLC4 a kappa-carrageenan/iota-carrageenan mixture manufactured byHercules of Wilmington, Del. While not tested, other types of gellingagents known to those of ordinary skill in the industry in combinationwith the liquid component and the protein component may also producesuitable dessert gels. In general, the carrageenan of the preferredembodiment causes gelation of the liquid component of the gellingsystem, and in exemplary embodiments the gelling agent comprises about0.43% to about 1.204%, about 0.62% to about 1.204%, about 0.62% to about0.85%, or about 0.806% to about 0.85% by weight of the resulting dessertgel.

In a preferred embodiment of the dessert gel, the protein component ofthe gelling system includes a soy protein isolate having high gellingcharacteristics, and more particularly includes PROFAM 974 soy proteinisolate having a protein content by weight of 90% and manufactured byADM of Decatur, Ill. Acceptable but lesser quality dessert gels of thepresent invention have been achieved by using in place of the soyprotein isolate: soy protein concentrate in particular Arcon F soyprotein concentrate having a protein content by weight of 69% andmanufactured by ADM of Decatur, Ill.; whey having a protein content byweight of 50% and manufactured by Davisco International of Le Sueur,Minn.; and sodium caseinate having a protein content by weight of 94%and manufactured by ICN Biochemicals of Cleveland, Ohio.

It is expected that suitable gelling systems may be achieved by usingwhey protein isolate and other water soluble proteins derived fromvarious animal and vegetable sources. The protein of the gelling systemgenerally enhances the overall gelling system by (i) increasing thestrength of the resulting gel, (ii) decreasing the rate of syneresis(i.e. decreasing the rate the liquid component exudes from the structureof the gelling system), and (iii) increasing the nutritional value ofthe dessert gel. As will be discussed below, suitable gelling systemsfor dessert gels have been formed with a protein component comprising atleast 50%, at least 69%, at least 90%, or at least 94% protein byweight. Mixtures of the above proteins or other sources of proteinscould result in suitable gelling systems being formed with a proteincomponent comprising about 50% to about 94%, about 69% to about 94%, orabout 69% to about 90% protein by weight.

In the exemplary embodiments, the dessert gel includes crystallinefructose which may be obtained from A. E. Staley of Lafayette, Ind.However, it is contemplated that other sweeteners may also be used toimpart the desired level of sweetness to the dessert gel such assaccharin, sucrose, aspartame, sorbitol, cane sugar, rice syrup, as wellas others. In the exemplary embodiments, the dessert gel also includesflavorings such as cherry, lemon, and orange which may be obtained fromUniversal Flavors, Inc. a division of Universal Foods of Milwaukee, Wis.Again, other flavorings and sources of flavorings are contemplated foruse with the dessert gel of the present invention. In order to providethe dessert gel with additional tartness, some of the exemplary dessertgels include ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) which also provides additionalnutritional value. It is contemplated that the dessert gel may beproduced without ascorbic acid or may be produced with other ingredientsto impart an appropriate flavor to the dessert gel.

In a preferred embodiment, the dessert gel includes various nutritionaladditives such as soy isoflavones and calcium from calcium gluconate.Various research has indicated that soy isoflavones may provide manyhealth benefits such as reducing menopause systems and helping to combatvarious forms of cancer. Among other things, calcium aids in maintainingstrong teeth and bones, and helps prevent or slow osteoporosis a diseasein which bones become porous and brittle. It is further contemplatedthat the dessert gel may include other nutritional additives such asother vitamins and other minerals.

Texture, Taste and Syneresis Testing of Dessert Gels Comprising SoyProtein Isolate

Gelling systems comprising carrageenan as the primary gelling agent tendto exude water from their matrices over time. This exudation of water(i.e. syneresis) leads to a decrease in firmness, an increase inmoisture, and bad mouth feel. Tests were performed to evaluate theexudation of the liquid component from the structure of dessert gel(i.e. syneresis) over time, the taste of the dessert gel, and the mouthfeel (i.e. texture) of the dessert gel. In particular, the syneresistest was performed to determine a satisfactory protein and carrageenmix.

Gel Determination for Limiting Syneresis Test

Various gelling systems were formed from 80 g of crystalline fructose, 2g of soy protein isolate, varying amounts of carrageen, and 0.02 g ofannatto (coloring). These gelling systems were formed without anyflavoring or nutritional additives such as isoflavones, ascorbic acid orcalcium gluconate. In particular, five different gelling systems wereformed with each having a different level of carrageen ranging from 0.5% of the total water component to 2.5% of the total water component.

TABLE 1 Carrageenan at 0.5% of total water weight. Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 18.232 80.000 Carrageenan 0.405 1.775 SoyProtein Isolate 0.456 2.000 Water 80.903 355.000 Annatto Coloring 0.0050.020 Total 100.000 438.795

TABLE 2 Carrageenan at 1.0% of total water weight. Component % Amountused (g) Fructose 18.158 80.000 Carrageenan 0.806 3.550 Soy ProteinIsolate 0.454 2.000 Water 80.577 355.000 Annatto Coloring 0.005 0.020Total 100.000 440.570

TABLE 3 Carrageenan at 1.5% of total water weight. Component % Amountused (g) Fructose 18.085 80.000 Carrageenan 1.204 5.325 Soy ProteinIsolate 0.452 2.000 Water 80.254 355.000 Annatto Coloring 0.005 0.020Total 100.000 442.345

TABLE 4 Carrageenan at 2.0% of total water weight. Component % Amountused (g) Fructose 18.013 80.000 Carrageenan 1.599 7.100 Soy ProteinIsolate 0.450 2.000 Water 79.933 355.000 Annatto Coloring 0.005 0.020Total 100.000 444.120

TABLE 5 Carrageenan at 2.5% of total water weight. Component % Amountused (g) Fructose 17.941 80.000 Carrageenan 1.990 8.875 Soy ProteinIsolate 0.449 2.000 Water 79.615 355.000 Annatto Coloring 0.004 0.020Total 100.000 445.895

In particular, the above gel systems were formed by respectively adding80 g of fructose, the indicated amount of carrageenan, and 2 g of soyprotein isolate to a 400 ml beaker. After adding the above dryingredients to the beaker, 0.020 g of annatto was added to the drymixture in the beaker. Annatto liquid ‘miscelles’ were broken up usingthe pestle and mortar method until the desired color was achieved. Thedry mixture including the annatto was then mixed with 355 ml (i.e. 1.5Cups) of boiling water. The water and dry mixture were mixed well for 2minutes at which time approximately 180 ml samples were poured into a400 ml beaker and refrigerated for two hours. The gel systems were thentaken out of the beaker and placed upside down in a petri dish.

The gelling systems were then allowed to cool for two hours at whichtime height measurements of each gelling system were taken in three-hourincrements with Vernier calipers. Data was taken at room temperature(24° C.) because this would be the most extreme condition that a dessertgel would most likely need to endure. The data could then beextrapolated to refrigerator temperature, where the gelling systemsshould hold water much longer. Below Table 6 shows the raw height dataobtained and Table 7 shows the corresponding percent sag, where:

percent_sag(t)=1−Height(t)/Height_(initial)

TABLE 6 Transient Height Data of Gelling Systems Over a 12-Hour Span at24° C. % Carrageen with respect to Water 0 Hour 3 Hour 6 hour 9 hour 12hour 0.5 2.2 2 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.0 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.5 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.62.5 2.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.5 3.2 3.1 3 3 3

TABLE 7 Transient Percent Sag Data of Gelling Systems Over a 12-HourSpan at 24° C. % Carrageen with respect to Water 0 Hour 3 Hour 6 hour 9hour 12 hour 0.5 0% 9.1% 22.7% 25%   36.3% 1.0 0% 3.8% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4%1.5 0% 7.0% 10.3% 10.3% 13.8% 2.0 0% 3.1% 3.1%  3.1% 3.1% 2.5 0% 3.1%6.3%  6.3% 6.3%

The experiment showed that the gelling systems with the highestconcentrations of carrageenan tend to exude less water, but have ahockey-puck like texture. The gelling system with the lowest carrageenanconcentration showed to be too weak and experienced a 36.3% decrease inheight. The gelling system with 1%, or a little over 1% carrargeenan wasfound to be the best of the above gelling systems. This was determinedby the fact that the 1% carrageenan gelling system had an appropriatetexture right out of the refrigerator and mostly maintained its height 3to 6 hours. This leads to the conclusion that if the 1% carrageenangelling system were taken directly from the refrigerator and eaten, thegelling system would be very enjoyable due to its relatively smooth butfirm texture. If the 1% carrageenan gelling system were subjected to aworst case scenario of being left out on a table for a day, it wouldexperience minimal (15%) sagging or water loss. Adding more high-gellingprotein to the gelling system would theoretically bind more of water inthe gelling system, thus allowing a more temperature and time resistantcarrageenan base gelling system.

Taste Testing

A “Descriptive Analysis” using “structure category scaling” according tomethods shown in “The Food Chemistry Laboratory” (Connie Weaver, 1996),per the International Food Technologist guidelines was constructed. Inparticular, a separate survey was constructed for each of the threeflavors tested (cherry, lemon, and orange). The taste test survey forthe cherry flavored dessert gel is depicted in FIG. 1. Very similartaste test surveys were constructed for the lemon flavored dessert geland the orange flavored dessert gel. The dessert gels were made in afashion similar to above.

For each flavor of dessert gel tested, two different samples wereprepared with the ingredients indicated in Tables 8 through 15 asfollows:

TABLE 8 Sample A of Cherry Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 15.75 68 Soy Protein Isolate 0.46 2 Isoflavones0.12 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.85 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Cherry Flavoring 0.30 1.3 Water 82.23 355 DryAnnatto 0.02 0.1 Liquid Annatto 0.11 0.47 Total 100.00 431.72

TABLE 9 Sample B of Cherry Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 17.28 76 Soy Protein Isolate 0.45 2 Isoflavones0.11 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.83 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Cherry Flavoring 0.30 1.3 Water 80.73 355 DryAnnatto 0.02 0.1 Liquid Annatto 0.11 0.47 Total 100.00 439.72

TABLE 10 Sample A of Lemon Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 15.77 68 Soy Protein Isolate 0.46 2 Isoflavones0.12 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.85 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Lemon Flavoring 0.30 1.3 Water 82.33 355 LiquidAnnatto 0.01 0.03 Total 100.00 431.18

TABLE 11 Sample B of Lemon Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 17.31 76 Soy Protein Isolate 0.46 2 Isoflavones0.11 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.83 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Lemon Flavoring 0.30 1.3 Water 80.83 355 LiquidAnnatto 0.01 0.03 Total 100.00 439.18

TABLE 12 Sample A of Orange Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 15.77 68 Soy Protein Isolate 0.46 2 Isoflavones0.12 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.85 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Orange Flavoring 0.30 1.3 Water 82.32 355 LiquidAnnatto 0.02 0.1 Total 100.00 431.25

TABLE 13 Sample B of Orange Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 17.30 76 Soy Protein Isolate 0.46 2 Isoflavones0.11 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.83 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Orange Flavoring 0.30 1.3 Water 80.82 355 LiquidAnnatto 0.02 0.1 Total 100.00 439.25

Taste Test Data Analysis

The surveys allowed each tester to assign to each sample one of seventaste ratings ranging from “Like extremely” (6) to “Dislike extremely”(0). Similarly, the surveys allowed each tester to assign to each sampleone of seven texture ratings ranging from “Like extremely” (6) to“Dislike extremely” (0). The rankings for each sample were averaged toobtain an average taste rating Taste_(average) and an average texturerating Texture_(average) for each sample.

The taste test provided information which aided in reformulating thedessert gels. The general consensus of the testers from the initialround of testing was that the texture was great, or “like very much.”However, the data corresponding to taste was not satisfactory at all.The most common responses were “neither like nor dislike” and “likemoderately”. After another day's worth of testing and adjusting thefructose, ascorbic acid, and flavorings, a dessert gel formulation wasobtained having suitable taste and texture properties. In particular,the flavorings were dramatically increased, the fructose was slightlyincreased, and the ascorbic acid was increased to provide more tartness.After reformulation, the dessert gels were found to be like commongelatin snacks in both taste and texture. The ingredient levels of thereformulated dessert gels are provided in Tables 14 through 16 whichfollow:

TABLE 14 Reformulated Cherry Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 17.97 80 Soy Protein Isolate 0.45 2 Isoflavones0.11 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.82 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Cherry Flavoring 0.63 2.8 Water 79.74 355 DryAnnatto 0.02 0.1 Liquid Annatto 0.11 0.47 Total 100.00 445.22

TABLE 15 Reformulated Lemon Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 18.04 80 Soy Protein Isolate 0.45 2 Isoflavones0.11 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.82 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Lemon Flavoring 0.36 1.6 Water 80.05 355 LiquidAnnatto 0.01 0.03 Total 100.00 443.48

TABLE 16 Reformulated Orange Flavored Dessert Gel Component % By WeightAmount used (g) Fructose 18.03 80 Soy Protein Isolate 0.45 2 Isoflavones0.11 0.50 g Carrageenan 0.82 3.65 Ascorbic Acid 0.06 0.25 CalciumGluconate 0.10 0.45 Orange Flavoring 0.41 1.8 Water 80.00 355 LiquidAnnatto 0.02 0.1 Total 100.00 443.75

Comparative Protein Testing

Further texture and gelatin kinetic tests were performed on the abovereformulated dessert gels and other gelling systems that include otherwater soluble protein components such as soy protein concentrate, whey,and sodium caseinate. The main objectives of these additional tests wereto (i) determine whether dessert gels made with soy protein isolate havebetter characteristics than gels made from other proteins, and (ii)whether suitable dessert gels could be made with other proteins. As willbe explained in more detail below, the comparative protein testingindicated that the dessert gels made with soy protein isolate do in facthave better characteristics than dessert gels made with the other testedproteins.

Gelling System Formation For Comparative Protein Testing

Cherry flavored dessert gels, orange flavored dessert gels, and lemonflavored dessert gels were prepared with the ingredients indicated inTables 14 through 16. Gelling systems with or without protein and havinga similar composition as the gelling systems of the reformulated cherry,orange, and lemon dessert gels were also prepared. The base compositionof the gelling systems is provided in Table 17 along with the volume ofwater used in making each gelling system. All gelling systems and thecherry, orange, and lemon dessert gels were made by making a dry mixcontaining all solid ingredients, followed by addition of boiling waterto the dry mix in a round glass beaker. The dispersion obtained wasstirred (with heating if necessary) until all gelling materials wereproperly dissolved or dispersed. The glass beaker containing the gellingsystem was allowed to cool to room temperature, then placed in arefrigerator and held for two (2) hours. For kinetics of gelationmeasurement, the gelling solution was placed in the sample compartmentof a mechanical rheometer.

TABLE 17 Composition of Different Gelling Systems Component Percent ByWeight Amount Used (g) Fructose 18.01 21.56 Carrageenan 0.82 0.98Calcium gluconate 0.10 0.12 PROTEIN 0.45 0.54 Water 80.62 100 Total100.00 119.73

Texture Analysis

Following gelation in the refrigerator, the strength of each gellingsystem was measured using a Stevens LFRA Texture Analyzer (TexturesTechnologies Corp., Scarsdale, N.Y.). The gel strength was taken as theamount of force (load) required to push a probe with a round tip 5 mminto the gel in a glass dish at a fixed rate of 2 mm/min.

The reformulated cherry, orange, and lemon dessert gel mixes, whendissolved in distilled water to form gels, had a pH value of about 5.2.The similar dry mixes including different protein components, on theother hand, had pH values ranging from 4.2 to 4.6. All the systemsconsidered formed gels both in the presence and absence of a protein asshown in Table 18. From our knowledge of gelling systems and the resultsshown in Table 18, it can be concluded that the main gel formingcomponent was carrageenan.

The proteins did cause an increase in gel strength as can be seen fromthe data in Table 18. The results show that the soy protein isolate(PROFAM 974 ) increased the gel strength of the carrageenan gel (gelformed without protein) by about 24% while sodium caseinate, soy proteinisolate (Arcon F) and whey increased the gel strength of the carrageenangel by about 35%, 47% and 44%, respectively. Also, the proteins tendedto impart color to the gels compared to gels containing no protein.

The cherry flavored gels had suspended particulate material that did notdissolve in water. Other flavored gels did not have this defect andtended to have a more uniform texture. Among the flavored dessert gelsmade, the cherry flavored gels were the strongest gels while the lemonand orange flavored gels were similar in strength.

TABLE 18 Texture Analyzer Reading of Various Gelling Systems TextureAnalyzer System Readings (g) Cherry Flavored Gel 40.0 ± 6.1 LemonFlavored Gel 34.0 ± 3.2 Orange Flavored Gel 30.0 ± 1.8 Basic GellingSystem without PROTEIN 23.0 ± 2.0 Basic Gelling System with soy proteinisolate 28.5 ± 2.6 Basic Gelling System with soy protein concentrate33.8 ± 1.2 Basic Gelling System with whey 33.3 ± 1.7 Basic GellingSystem with sodium caseinate 31.0 ± 2.4

Gelation Characterization

Gelation and melting kinetics of various gelling systems were determinedusing a dynamic oscillatory mechanical rheometer (Viscotech, RheologicaInstruments AB, Sweden). A small amount of sample (<5 ml) was placedinto the sample holder (about 3 mm deep) of the rheometer. A plateattached to the instrument crosshead was moved into position in thesample holder on the lower plate. The sample was cooled from 24° C. to4° C. at a constant rate of 1° C./min using liquid nitrogen to cool thesample chamber. The upper plate attached to the rheometer crosshead wasrotated at a frequency of 1 Hz and the strain applied to the sample wasmaintained at 3%. The temperature of the sample chamber was thenmaintained at 4° C. while the instrument measured and recorded theevolution of storage modulus G′ and loss modulus G″ over a period of 75minutes. At the end of a 75 minute period, the storage modulus G′ andthe loss modulus G″ of the orange and lemon flavored dessert gels weremeasured over a frequency range of 0.01 Hz to 10 Hz at 4° C. Finally, inorder to simulate melting, the gelling system in the sample chamber washeated from 4° C. to 37° C. at a rate of 1° C./min while the storagemodulus G′ and the loss modulus G″ were monitored.

Determination of the Gelation Temperature

The gelation temperature T_(g), was taken to be the temperature at whicha sudden rise in the magnitude of storage modulus G′, resulting insubsequent increase in the difference between the storage modulus G′ andthe loss modulus G″.

Determination of Gelation Rate

The evolution of the storage modulus G′ over time during gelation wasfitted to a first order kinetics

G′(t)=G′ _(max)[1−exp(−kt)]  (1)

where G′_(max) is the value of the storage modulus G′ at the end of theholding period, t is the gelation time, and k is the gelation rateconstant. The gelation rate constants k for all systems investigatedwere calculated for the first 15 minutes of gelation by fitting Equation1 to the experimental data.

Determination of Gel Strength

The gel strength was estimated to be the value of G′ at the end of the75 minute holding period at 4° C.

Determination of Melting Temperature and Melting Rate

The melting temperature T_(m) of the gel formed at 4° C. for one (1)hour was determined to be the temperature at which the storage modulusG′ started falling as the gel was heated. The melting rate wasdetermined to be the rate of decrease of the storage modulus G′ overtime after the gelation temperature was reached.

Gelation Characterization

In the manufacture of gels, hot water is added to dry mix with stirringto dissolve solid components. The gelling system is then cooled at afixed rate to a desired temperature, usually refrigeration temperature,then held at this temperature for the gel to mature. In excellentgelling systems, the storage modulus G′ and the loss modulus G″ are verysimilar during the early stages of cooling when no gel network is beingformed. The storage modulus G′, is a measure of energy stored during gelnetwork formation and represents gel elasticity. The loss modulus G″, isa measure of energy loss due to friction during gel network formationand represents gel viscosity.

At the gelation temperature, when a gel network begins to form, thestorage modulus G′ starts increasing rapidly while the loss modulus G″either mains relatively constant or increases only slightly over time.During the holding phase of gelation, the storage modulus G′ continuesto increase rapidly until it reaches an equilibrium level. Beyond thisequilibrium level the rate of increase of the storage modulus G′ overtime is very small. The loss modulus G″, on the other hand, remains verysmall and does not change significantly over time during both thecooling and holding phases. Overall, the storage modulus G′ is a lothigher than the loss modulus G″ when a gel network has formed. Duringheating of the gel or melting, the storage modulus G′ remains fairlyconstant for a while, then begins to decease at a constant rate when thegel melting point T_(m) is reached. The loss modulus G″ does not changesignificantly during melting.

The cherry flavored gels contained large particles and were not suitablefor use in a mechanical rheometer. Thus rheological characterization ofthese gels were not carried out. The lemon and orange flavored gels wereevaluated using a mechanical rheometer; however, the results of theorange flavored gels either were subject to significant error orcontained enough large particles to make it not suitable for use in amechanical rheometer. As a result, only the lemon flavored gel resultsare presented below.

Determination of Gelation Temperature

The evolution of the storage modulus G′ and the loss modulus G″ duringthe cooling phase of gel formation for the lemon flavored gel is shownin FIG. 2. It is evident that gel formation begins even before coolingis started as storage modulus G′ is greater than the loss modulus G″ at24° C. Gelation commenced at about 23° C. (1 minute into the coolingphase) as evidenced by the sudden increase in the storage modulus G′compared to the loss modulus G″.

The gelation temperatures induced by cooling for all other gellingsystems are summarized in Table 19. The cooling profiles for the othergelling systems investigated are shown in FIGS. 3-7. The gelling systemcontaining no protein had a gelation temperature of 20.7° C. Addition ofsoy protein isolate (PROFAM 974 ) to the formulation did not affectgelation temperature significantly. Addition of soy protein concentrate,whey, and sodium caseinate increased gelation temperature, thus causinggelation to start sooner during the cooling cycle.

Determination of Gelation Rate

After cooling the gelling systems from 24° C. to 4° C. at a rate of 1°C./min, the gelling systems were held at 4° C. for 75 min each. Theevolution of storage modulus G′ and the loss modulus G″ over time areshown in FIGS. 8-13. Overall, the gelling systems exhibited good gellingbehavior. In particular, the storage modulus G′ was significantly higherthan the loss modulus G″ throughout the holding period.

Gelling systems containing no protein and gelling systems containing soyprotein isolate exhibited the best gelling profiles: high storagemodulus G′ and a low loss modulus G″ increasing at a very slow rate(FIGS. 8-10). Even though the gels containing soy proteins concentrate,whey and sodium caseinate produced comparable storage modulus G′ values(see FIGS. 11-13), they also produced much higher loss modulus G″ valuesindicating a highly viscous nature for these gels.

The data for storage modulus G′ versus time for the first 15 minutes ofholding period were fitted to Equation 1. The results for the variousgelling systems are displayed in FIGS. 14-19, and summarized in Table19. The gelling system containing no protein gelled at a rate of 0.0561Pa/min whereas the gelation rate for the lemon flavored gel was higherat 0.0871 Pa/min. Addition of soy protein isolate reduced gelation rateto 0.0412 Pa/min, while whey and soy protein concentrate increasedgelatin rate significantly to 0.0869 and 0.0798 Pa/min respectively. Theresults are summarized in Table 19.

Determination of Gel Strength

Gel strength was estimated to be the value of the storage modulus G′ atthe end of 75 minutes of gelation at 4° C. Table 19 shows that thegelling system containing no protein had a gel strength of about 308 Pa.Addition of whey and sodium caseinate decreased gel strength to 243 Paand 263 Pa, respectively, while addition of soy protein isolateincreased gel strength to 371 Pa. Addition of soy protein concentratehad no significant effect on gel strength.

Determination of Melting Temperature and Melting Rate

The melting profiles for all gelling systems investigated are shown inFIGS. 20-24 and the data is summarized in Table 19. The lemon flavoredgel started to melt at about 18° C. at a rate of 9.7 Pa/min. Table 19shows that the gelling system containing soy protein isolate started tomelt at about 15° C. at a rate of 12 Pa/min. Systems containing soyprotein concentrate and sodium caseinate had slightly higher meltingpoint (17.2 and 17.4° C. respectively) and lower melting rate 19.0 and11.3 Pa/min respectively). In general, the melting temperature andmelting rate for all the gelling systems were similar to those of thelemon flavored gel except for the whey containing gelling systems whichhad the lowest melting rate of 7.8 Pa/min.

TABLE 19 Gelatin Parameters for Various Gelling Systems G′ at end ofGelation Gelation Gel Melting Melting Gelling Cooling Temperature RateStrength Temperature Rate System (PA) (° C.) (Pa/min) (Pa) (° C.)(Pa/min) Lemon 276 23 0.0871 427 18.3 9.7 No 163 20.7 0.0561 308 — —PROTEIN Soy Protein 181 19.7 0.0412 371 15.3 12.1  Isolate Soy Protein287 22.8 0.196 304 17.2 9.0 Concentrate Whey 231 24 0.1867 243 21.4 7.8Sodium 172 24 0.0798 264 17.4 11.3  Caseinate

Compression/Texture Testing of Soy Protein Isolate/Carrageen GellingSystems

Compression/texture testing was performed in order to determine theeffects on stress and strain due to varying amounts of protein andcarbohydrates in a gel. As indicated above the cherry, lemon, and orangeformulations were generally obtained by trial and error taste testing.The final consistency of the product, with 2 g protein and 3.65carrageenan, was chosen because of its agreeable texture and syneresischaracteristics. The foregoing compressing/texture tests extrapolatedfrom this basis.

The compression/texture testing was accomplished via “lubricatedsqueezing flow” or more technically biaxial extensional viscometry. Thegeneral setup of the testing apparatus is shown in FIG. 25. Biaxialextensional viscometry is commonly used for measuring the relationshipbetween the stress and strain for foods such as Jell-O.

Gelling systems having similar compositions to the reformulated cherry,orange, and lemon dessert gels were made with varying amounts of soyprotein isolate and carrageenan. In particular, dry mixes were made from80 g of crystalline fructose, 0.45 g calcium gluconate, and the amountsof carrageenan and soy protein isolate depicted in Tables 20-22. Afterthe dry mixes were thoroughly mixed, 100 g of boiling water was added to22 g of the dry mixture in a round glass beaker. The dispersion obtainedwas stirred (with heating if necessary) until all gelling materials wereproperly dissolved or dispersed. The glass beaker containing the gellingsystem was allowed to cool to room temperature, then placed in arefrigerator and held for two (2) hours.

After refrigeration, a bore specifically designed for cutting cylindersto be used in biaxial extensional viscometry testing was used to obtaina cylindrical sample having a 1.5 inch diameter of each gelling systemto be tested. Once cut, some of the gelling systems lost therecylindrical shape when the structure of the gelling system could notsupport the internal mass of the cylindrical sample. In particular, whenplaced on a horizontal surface, the bases of these cylindrical samplesexpanded thus resulting in a cylindrical sample that appeared to have alarger base diameter than a top diameter. Although cylinders like thiswere analyzed, corrections for the difficult geometry were not takeninto account. Some samples had very little of no gel structure, andtherefore could not be included in the testing.

TABLE 20 Gelling Systems Representative of 3.65 g Carrageenan PlusVaried Amounts of Soy Protein Isolate. protein cup + mass volume percentinitial product water used Sample # protein (g) weight weight used (ml)NS01 0 0 138.42 22 100 NS02 0.5 0.11 138.91 22 100 NS03 1 0.21 139.67 22100 NS04 2 0.42 140.08 22 100 NS05 3 0.62 141.08 22 100 NS06 4 0.82142.05 22 100

TABLE 21 Gelling Systems Representative of 2.0 g Soy Protein Isolatewith Varied Amounts of Carrageenan. Carrageenan cup + mass volumeCarrageenan Percent by initial product water used Sample # (g) weightweight used (ml) NS07 0 0 136.43 22 100 NS08 2 0.43 138.32 22 100 NS09 30.63 139.39 22 100 NS10 4 0.83 140.43 22 100

TABLE 22 Gelling Systems Representative of 3.0 g Soy Protein Isolatewith Varied Amounts of Carrageenan. Carrageenan cup + mass volumeCarrageenan Percent by initial product water used Sample # (g) weightweight used (ml) NS11 0 0 137.13 22 100 NS12 2 0.42 139.32 22 100 NS13 30.63 140.75 22 100 NS14 4 0.82 142.07 22 100

FIGS. 26-29 depict the results of the load required to compress acylindrical sample a certain distance. More specifically, FIG. 26depicts a composite of all the loading tests, and FIG. 27 depicts theload required to compress the cylindrical samples of the gelling systemsdetailed in Table 20 a certain distance. In particular, FIG. 27 depictsthe affect of varying the amount of soy protein isolate from 0 g to 4 gor from about 0% to about 0.81% by weight of the resulting gellingsystem while maintaining the level of carrageenan at a constant amount.Similarly, FIGS. 28 and 29 depict the load required to compress thecylindrical samples of the gelling systems detailed in Tables 21 and 22,respectively, a certain distance. More specifically, FIG. 28 depicts theaffect of varying the amount of carrageen from 0 g to 4 g or from about0% to about 0.83% by weight of the resulting gelling system whilemaintaining the level of soy protein at a constant amount of 2 g orabout 0.42% to about 0.44% by weight of the resulting gelling system,and FIG. 29 depicts the affect of varying the amount of carrageen from 0g to 4 g or from 0% to about 0.82% by weight of the resulting gellingsystem while maintaining the level of soy protein at a constant amountof 3 g or about 0.61% to about 0.64% by weight of the resulting gellingsystem.

Referring now to FIG. 27, the graph illustrates that the sample NS03requires the least axial pressure to compress it to half of its originalheight (i.e. 50% vertical strain). Sample NS03 has the lowest amount ofsoy protein isolate of those gelling systems upon which biaxialextensional viscometry was performed. As can be seen in FIG. 27, as theamount of soybean protein isolate increases, the force required to reach50% stain also increases.

Referring now to FIG. 28, there appears to be no discernable trend forvarying the carrageenan level with 2 g of soy protein isolate above 3 gof carrageen. The reformulated cherry, lemon, and orange dessert gelsinclude 3.65 g of carrageenan and 2 g protein. This is roughly betweenthe two graphed samples NS09 and NS10 of FIG. 28.

Referring now to FIG. 29, as expected, the gelling system NS14 with thehigher amount of carrageenan requires a larger stress to reach 50%strain. What is interesting to note in this graph is that the differencein between the two lines is greater than in the graph depicted in FIG.29. The difference may be due to the higher soy protein isolate content.However, the difference also may be due to a lack of lubrication betweenthe plates, thereby introducing error. Since the graph of sample NS14 isslightly above that of NS10, it probably is good data. However, sincethe graphs of the samples NS13 and NS9 are so different, and the graphof the sample NS13 is not in accord with what “should” happen, thegreater difference between samples NS13 and NS14 is most likely due toerror introduced into the testing of the sample NS13.

As a result of the biaxial extensional viscometry tests, there appearsto be room for additional soy protein isolate to the cherry, orange, andlemon dessert gels, even if the carrageenan is kept at its currentlevel. From the stress vs. strain curves depicted in FIGS. 26-29, it canbe seen that the addition of an extra gram of soy protein isolate onlyslightly increases the stress at 50% compression, thus increasing thesoy protein isolate to roughly 0.67% by weight of the resulting dessertgel. The addition of more soy protein isolate would increase thenutritional value of the dessert gels and further aid the negativeeffects of syneresis due to the extra soy protein isolate binding morewater in the gelling system. Therefore, an additional gram of soyprotein isolate should increase the stability and quality of the dessertgels.

While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in thedrawings and foregoing description, such illustration and description isto be considered as exemplary and not restrictive in character, it beingunderstood that only exemplary embodiments have been shown and describedand that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit ofthe invention are desired to be protected.

What is claimed is:
 1. A gelatinous dessert product, comprising agelling agent, a water soluble protein component, and a water basedliquid component which form a gelling system, wherein said gellingsystem comprises up to about 0.82 percent by weight of said proteincomponent, and said protein component comprises at least 50% by weightof protein, wherein the gelling system allows the dessert product toremain a gel at a temperature up to about 24° C.
 2. The gelatinousdessert product of claim 1, wherein said protein component comprises atleast 69% by weight of protein.
 3. The gelatinous dessert product ofclaim 1, wherein said protein component comprises at least 90% by weightof protein.
 4. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 1, wherein saidprotein component comprises from about 69% by weight to about 94% byweight of protein.
 5. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 4, whereinsaid gelling system comprises up to about 0.67% by weight of saidprotein component.
 6. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 1, whereinsaid gelling system comprises about 0.38% by weight to about 0.67% byweight of said protein component.
 7. The gelatinous dessert product ofclaim 1, wherein said protein component comprises at least 90% by weightof protein, and said gelling system comprises about 0.38% by weight toabout 0.67% by weight of said protein component.
 8. The gelatinousdessert product of claim 1, wherein said gelling agent consistsessentially of carrageenan, and said protein component consistsessentially of soy protein isolate.
 9. The gelatinous dessert product ofclaim 1, wherein said gelling agent consists essentially of carrageenan,and said protein component comprises a soy protein selected from thegroup consisting of soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate. 10.The gelatinous dessert product of claim 1, wherein said gelling agentconsists essentially of carrageenan, and said protein componentcomprises a protein selected from the group consisting of soy proteinisolate, soy protein concentrate, whey, and sodium caseinate.
 11. Thegelatinous dessert product of claim 1, wherein said gelling agentconsists essentially of carrageenan, and said gelling system comprisesat least 0.43% by weight of said gelling agent.
 12. The gelatinousdessert product of claim 1, wherein said gelling agent consistsessentially of carrageenan, and said gelling system comprises from about0.43% by weight to about 1.204% by weight of said gelling agent.
 13. Thegelatinous dessert product of claim 1, wherein said gelling agentconsists essentially of carrageenan, and said gelling system comprisesfrom about 0.62% by weight to about 0.85% by weight of said gellingagent.
 14. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 1, wherein saidgelling agent consists essentially of carrageenan, and said gellingsystem comprises from about 0.806% to about 0.85% by weight of saidgelling agent.
 15. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 1, whereinafter 60 minutes of holding at a temperature below a gelationtemperature for said gelling system, said gelling system has a storagemodulus G′ of at least 300 Pa and a loss modulus G″ of less than 200 Pa.16. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 1, wherein after 60 minutesof holding at a temperature below the gelation temperature for saidgelling system, said gelling system has a storage modulus G′ of at least350 Pa and a loss modulus G″ of less than 100 Pa.
 17. The gelatinousdessert product of claim 1, wherein said gelling system has a gelationtemperature between about 19° C. and about 24° C., and has a meltingtemperature between about 15° C. and about 18° C.
 18. The gelatinousdessert product of claim 1, further comprising a nutritional additiveselected from vitamins and minerals.
 19. The gelatinous dessert productof claim 1, further comprising a nutritional additive selected fromisoflavones, calcium, and ascorbic acid.
 20. A gelatinous dessertproduct, comprising a gelling agent, a water soluble protein component,and a water based liquid component which form a gelling system, whereinsaid gelling system comprises about 0.43% percent to about 1.204% byweight of said gelling agent, wherein the gelling system allows thedessert product to remain a gel at a temperature up to about 24° C. 21.The gelatinous dessert product of claim 20, wherein the gelling systemcomprises about 0.62% to about 1.204% by weight of said gelling agent.22. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 21, wherein the gellingsystem comprises about 0.62% to about 0.85% by weight of said gellingagent.
 23. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 22, wherein thegelling system comprises about 0.806% to about 0.85% by weight of saidgelling agent.
 24. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 23, whereinthe protein component comprises a soy protein selected from the groupconsisting of soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate.
 25. Thegelatinous dessert product of claim 20, wherein the protein componentcomprises a soy protein selected from the group consisting of soyprotein isolate and soy protein concentrate.
 26. The gelatinous dessertproduct of claim 21, wherein the protein component comprises a soyprotein selected from the group consisting of soy protein isolate andsoy protein concentrate.
 27. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 20,wherein the gelling system comprises up to 0.82% by weight of saidprotein component, and said protein component comprises at least 50% byweight of protein.
 28. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 27,wherein said protein component comprises at least 69% by weight ofprotein.
 29. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 28, wherein saidprotein component comprises at least 90% by weight of protein.
 30. Thegelatinous dessert product of claim 29, wherein said protein componentcomprises from about 69% by weight to about 94% by weight of protein.31. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 20, wherein said gellingsystem comprises up to about 0.82% by weight of said protein component.32. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 31, wherein said gellingsystem comprises at least about 0.38% by weight of said proteincomponent.
 33. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 32, wherein saidgelling system comprises about 0.38% by weight to about 0.67% by weightof said protein component.
 34. The gelatinous dessert product of claim33, wherein the protein component comprises at least 50% by weight ofprotein and wherein the protein component comprises a soy proteinselected from the group consisting of soy protein isolate and soyprotein concentrate.
 35. The gelatinous dessert product of claim 34,wherein said protein component comprises at least 90% by weight ofprotein.